- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 23:15:55 +0100
On 7/3/05, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen <hallvord at hallvord.com> wrote: > On 3 Jul 2005 at 21:30, Jim Ley wrote: > > It's trivial to work around > > That is obvious. However, *will* people work around it, or will the > browser that is better at caching documents be at a disadvantage > because web apps will mysteriously appear broken to the end user..? XMLHTTP in IE is fully wired into the cache, and works appropriately, I can't see how the behaviour will differ in different caching scenarios in any case. IE also returns the exact status code recieved from the server. > I don't think IE ever sends a conditional request for a document > requested via XMLHttpRequest (I don't know every corner of the HTTP > caching spec though). It does if the cache is appropriately configured. > I think faking 200 would be in the > interest of smaller browsers I don't see how hobbling smaller browsers helps them in any way. I also certianly don't see the point in writing a specification just for smaller browsers, but we've discussed that before. > and make life simpler for JS authors > under most conditions (I don't see much of a use case for wanting to > know about the 304 response..) I've deployed a number of systems that rely on getting a 304 response to the xmlhttp request object - Generally the client has been polling a server for the state of a remote thing (the example most recently in my mind was the temp of a freezer) and if it's not changed since the last response, then I quite rightly send a 304, and test for it on the client, it was an embedded IE solution, and it worked fine in IE. Cheers, Jim.
Received on Sunday, 3 July 2005 15:15:55 UTC